Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LAL JI PANDEY & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lal Ji Pandey & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 1593 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 1205 (2 May 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1593 of 2004.

Lal Ji Pandey and others   Applicants

Versus

State of U.P. and others.                                Respondent.

...............

Hon'ble R. K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

All the petitioners are holding Stage Carriage Permits in order to ply their vehicles at Bardiya- Khaliyari route in the district of Sonbhadra. Vide order dated 7th July, 1999, the Regional Transport Authority had determined the number of kilometers covered to each of the vehicle at 7470 km. This was arrived at after taking into consideration number of the vehicle operators are operating on the said route only twice in a day. This was, however, increased and the kilometers has been fixed by taking 80 trips per month instead of 60 trips fixed earlier.

We have heard Sri Shiv Ram Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

It is not disputed that the distance is only 86 kilometers. The contention of the petitioners is that they make two trips in a day according to permit cannot be believed as it was common knowledge that short distance of 86 kilometers can conveniently be covered within a maximum period of 3 ½ hours.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Singh and another Versus Regional Transport Authority, Meerut reported in 1995 Allahabad Civil Journal, 325 wherein this court has held that the respondent is not competent to exercise such powers regarding the assessment, reassessment, realisation and recovery of the tax under the provisions of U.P. Motor Gadi Yatrikar Adhiniyam. In the present case, we find that the Regional Transport Authority has not made any assessment, reassessment or issued any direction for realisation of the recovery of tax. It had only fixed the number of kilometer and distance covered by each of the vehicle operator. Moreover the petitioners cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath as on the one hand they are relying upon and taking advantage of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority fixing the distance, trip and the kilometer which is to be taken to have been covered in a quarter by each of the operators for the purpose of levy of tax and on the other hand they are challenging his jurisdiction and authority when he has verified the same by making enhancement. Thus the aforesaid decision is not applicable. Even otherwise we do not find it to be a fit case for interference in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Dated. 2.5.2005.

VS.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.